Chapter 6
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
MANAGEMENT
PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE
1
ii. A Norwich Pharmacal order being an equitable remedy will not be granted
as of right even when the requirements are satisfied and the court has
discretion as to whether to grant or refuse it.
5) Process of Discovery
Disclosure
i. O24 R3 ROC 2012
inspection and taking of copies
i. O24 R9-10 ROC
Production
i. O24 R11-14 ROC
6) Party may refused to produce the documents for inspection
The evidence will discloses his own case
i. Patch v United Bristol Hospitals Board (1959) 1 WLR 955
o Written statements made before any claim has been made, or even
adumbrated, are privileged from discovery if they are made in
anticipation of any claim which may be made.
Private and confidential communication between him and his legal adviser
Public official documents-if disclose would be injurious to public-O24 R15 ROC 2012
Denies the possession of the document
7) Privileges documents whereby discovery of these documents are not allowed:-
Evidence Act 1950
i. Sec 121-132
Government Proceedings Act 1956
i. Sec 36
8) What documents are subject to Discovery?
O24 R 3 (4) ROC
Lonrho Ltd v Shell
i. If a document is within the power of the person to produce it will also come
within this rule provided he has a presently enforceable legal right to obtain
from whoever actually holds the document for inspection of it without the
need to obtain the consent of anyone else.
Notice to produce-O24 R10 ROC 2012
Failure to make Discovery-O24 R16 ROC
INTERROGATORIES- O26
1) What?
Interrogatories are written questions submitted to a party by another party.
The party receiving the interrogatories must submit answers made on oath.
In short, interrogatories allow one party to administer a series of question to the
other, and compel that other to answer them on oath before trial.
2) Power of Court to Order Interrogatories
O26 R1 & Form 44
3) Application
Normally after close of pleadings and after Discovery.
4) The questions
O26 R 1 (3),(4) ROC
5) Discretion of the Court
2
Pertubuhan Berita Nasional Malaysia v Stephen Kalong Ningkan
i. The court has an undoubted discretion to grant or refuse interrogatories but
in the exercise of its discretion, will give leave to such as necessary for
disposing fairly the action of for saving cost.
Sheikh Abdullah bin Sheikh Mohamed v Kang Kock Seng
i. Pleadings have closed, no reason given for lateness-court rejected.
Philip Hoalim v Amalgamated Theaters
i. Court has a duty to ensure oppressive documents or interrogatives or parts
thereof are struck off.
6) Admissions- O27 ROC 2012
Through pleadings or in answer in interrogatories
Agreement by parties
Notice
Facts
Documents in notice
7) Admissions cases
Malayan Banking Bhd v Foo See Moi
i. It is settled law that letters written without prejudice are inadmissible in
evidence of the negotiations attempted. This is in order not to fetter but to
enlarge the scope of negotiations, so that a solution acceptable to both sides
can easily be reached.
Yeo Hiap Seng v Australian Food Corp. Pte Ltd & Anor
i. The second defendant can only succeed in her application if she could show
that she was entitled to claim the privilege. As the second defendant took
no part in the ‘without prejudice’ negotiations, either personally or through
an agent, she could not claim privilege.
3
O26 R8 ROC 2012
2) Bisi AK Jinggot v Superintendent of Lands and Surveys Kuching Division
Endorsed preliminary cross examinations. Denied appellant counsel’s argument that
cross examination procedure by way of preliminary cross examination was not done
in accordance with established procedure. Non-issue because parties have agreed to
the mode of trial.
3) Application:-
O34 R1 ROC
4) Attendance of parties in pre-trial Case management
O34 R2 (See O34 R2 (2) –Directions from Court.
O34 R3 ROC-Notice
O34 R4 ROC – Attendance
O34 R6-Failure to attend.